Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-01-31/Disinformation report

Discuss this story

Great article. I've seen these advertisements, and of course knew what they were offering was not deliverable, as most if not all Signpost readers would. However the general public won't know this, at least a significant portion will take the adverts at face value. Perhaps sharing this article through the "socials" is the way to go. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

An interesting read, thanks. Celeste Mergens has been a redirect to Days for Girls since 2018, but this mention has reminded me to add her book as "Further reading" in the article. PamD 16:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rich. Yes I'd love to see this spread via social media, the mainstream press. Help save some people from being scammed, and help Wikipedia at the same time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be syndicated out to all mainstream publications rather than staying just on Signpost. – robertsky (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0. Go for it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've occasionally started an article after a "Please make an article about me!" request at the Teahouse etc. Just because a COI-editor wants something it doesn't have to be wrong, hence the only 95% failure rate for paid articles, I guess. One requester I saw said pretty much "Hello, I'm about to release a new book, and my publisher said it would be a good idea for me to have a WP-article. I also think I'm ok per WP:N, so please put my draft in mainspace!" And after some editors looked at it (and edited it), they did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great reporting! It also seems worth noting that the LinkedIn page for Elite Wiki Writers (archive) claims that they have "51-200 employees" and were founded in 2011. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn some more about them at WP:PAIDLIST#Sybex Lab. Elite Wiki Writers is just one of their many fronts. MarioGom (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They were globally locked by the WMF following a sockpuppet investigation, where 41 editors were blocked and confirmed as sockpuppets of CharmenderDeol." - Afaict those locks were made by stewards, not the WMF. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vermont: Good catch, I'll change "the WMF" to "stewards". That said, global locks and the use of stewards to make blocks, is something of a special case in blocking sockpuppets, often involving the WMF. There's a special place in the sock drawer for people who declare that they are paid editors and then work with undeclared socks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Smallbones, we generally lock any UPE socks with activities on more than one project, or where associated accounts are active xwiki. This covers a lot of UPE firms' sockfarms, who often make articles on multiple projects, create Wikidata items, and upload non-free photos to Commons. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been pinged a couple of times by people asking if someone claiming to be me really was. The answer, of course, being "Good God, no." I suppose they ducked the scam, but if they're doing things this blatantly fraudulent, wouldn't it seem that law enforcement could take some action on it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schemes like this, sadly, are probably not on FBI's list of priorities due to other stuff like business scams to the tune of half a billion dollars a year. And in the U.S., sub-national police and AGs really don't do much about internet crime as far as I know. My own state AG's official website for internet crime says "our efforts are limited by the office's lack of original criminal jurisdiction" and refers the reader to the FBI. Maybe things are better elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with @Bri: on the effectiveness of reporting to the authorities, but I doubt that it hurts anything either. Don't put all your trust in the government to get back your money for you. You need to take steps to protect yourself, first, last, and always.

And a word about WP:No legal threats is needed here. It doesn't do anybody any good, to spout off on how you are going to report a crime, and it could get you blocked here. But when you registered for Wikipedia, you don't park at the door your right (and sometime duty) to report crimes. In short don't talk about it, though when you think it is the right thing to do, just report the crime to the authorities.

You might think that, in the US, you should report to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission aka the FTC. From what I've seen, they take a lot of time trying to come up with the right general policies, publish these policies widely, then perhaps make a big splash with a few big cases. Which big cases? A fairly partisan group of 5(?) commissioners ultimately decides. In short, I think they'll come up with good ideas and policies most of the time, but aren't going to have speedy or effective enforcement. IMHO.

The FBI runs the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). It looks like it's fast and confidential to make a complaint. I don't know how effective it is. It may be the best you can do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shaun, I think your statement concerning the low likelihood of paid editors actually influencing content is way too optimistic. Multiple sting operations have demonstrated that it is possible to get even quite absurd, or absurdly promotional, content into Wikipedia. I recall one focused on Bollywood and one on German politics that was demonstrated on German TV – the paid content was only removed after the programme aired. A former Wikimedia official in Germany (has?) had a successful paid editing firm for years ... Will look up the Signpost report later when I've got a mo. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 10:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost references:

Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages The Signpost, 26 September 2021]]
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed, The Signpost, 9 October 2014

The Bollywood sting operation was by an Indian journalist who said in 2020 that paid editing in the Wikipedia biographies of minor Indian celebs was well organised, lucrative and pervasive. I can email you details if you are interested; I don't think it was covered in the Signpost. I don't know whether his claims were accurate either, but I would imagine that because of the smaller volunteer pool paying attention to pages of Indian singers, actors, etc., capturing them would be easier than it would be for equivalent European or North American minor celebs. Andreas JN 466 13:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a sense that the Indian promotion was well organized a few years ago when I was more active at the conflict of interest noticeboard but never saw independent investigation about it. Would love to see that link. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the kind of company discussed in the article (e.g. Sybex Lab, Abtach), their success rate is extremely low. Most of their articles never reach mainspace, the few that do usually do not last very long. That does not mean, however, that there is no other UPE content making it into mainspace. There is certainly a large amount of it, both from more sophisticated actors as well as the long tail of freelancers. MarioGom (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jared sounds like a mensch and it was good of him to talk to signpost. Jared, if you're reading this, comment on the talk page of your article "Hi Im Jared" and post the links you sent to the scammers. Somebody will find it and update eventually! Or if you have social media, you can just ask "Can someone update my Wikipedia page?" Lots of updates have been triggered that way. jengod (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]